- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are the Redskins getting so much heat?
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:44 pm to DelU249
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:44 pm to DelU249
No, as someone said earlier in this thread; in 2014, putting any color and then "skin" to name a group of people seems very wrong.
They were on your side of the argument. But I'm here to say they were correct, and that's real and valid, and it shows the power of our language.
If there had never been a team called the "redskins" and then suddenly there was, wouldn't it seem very wrong to you? And why isn't that enough? Why do you think we should just "educate", give them Fox Mulder's wall of text that kind of vaguely explains how it isn't offensive, or at least wasn't offensive. Are they gonna have that disclaimer under the logo from now on. How is that easier than just changing the damn name?
Red-skin, in 2014, is very much on the nose and very much strikes people of all races as wrong. That is real, no matter how much you argue it. That's why this issue is not going to go away.
They were on your side of the argument. But I'm here to say they were correct, and that's real and valid, and it shows the power of our language.
If there had never been a team called the "redskins" and then suddenly there was, wouldn't it seem very wrong to you? And why isn't that enough? Why do you think we should just "educate", give them Fox Mulder's wall of text that kind of vaguely explains how it isn't offensive, or at least wasn't offensive. Are they gonna have that disclaimer under the logo from now on. How is that easier than just changing the damn name?
Red-skin, in 2014, is very much on the nose and very much strikes people of all races as wrong. That is real, no matter how much you argue it. That's why this issue is not going to go away.
1
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:48 pm to genro
quote:
putting any color and then "skin" to name a group of people seems very wrong
seems wrong...SEEMS...tell me how it is wrong or don't tell me anything...native americans have red skin...I have white skin...black people have black skin
when the settlers came to America, there was one easy identifiable difference...skin color. They had not in fact seen red skin, nor had the natives even known of the existence of white skin...1955 Alabama I suspect plays a role into how it SEEMS very wrong...but there is nothing wrong with it, unless you intend it to be.
quote:
very much strikes people of all races as wrong
this is factually incorrect btw...or at least how I believe you intended it...people of all races also very much believe it is very inane and not ill spirited...works both ways...as for the majority of people, they don't see a problem
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:49 pm to DelU249
this topic is killing my productivity this week
fascinating conversation,
it has actually been a real discussion so
but I gots to go
fascinating conversation,
it has actually been a real discussion so
but I gots to go
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:49 pm to DelU249
quote:Why don't we call them the whiteskins or blackskins?
seems wrong...SEEMS...tell me how it is wrong or don't tell me anything...native americans have red skin...I have white skin...black people have black skin
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:50 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Anybody who denies that this is racist is an arse. But the question, open for discussion, is it worth fighting over. I think Chief Wahoo is worse. and Nd's leprechaun sucks
bullshite. Honest question, if you were in a bar with your buddy and he said hey Jeaux there are 2 n-words over there you know exactly what you are going to see when you turn around. If same buddy goes hey Jeaux look there are two redskins over there. 99.9% of people turn around expecting to see two Washington football players.
Predominately Native American high schools are voting to keep their high school mascot as redskins. People that have actually talked to native Americans on reservations say they could give two shits about it.
This is just another case of the white guilt leftist media telling a group "hey you should be offended by this and if you don't say something we will" it's all about getting out front and controlling the narrative, they are experts of facilitating group think on any hot button subject.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:52 pm to DelU249
quote:
I wish someone would front the cash to put peter king, phil simms, and a shitload of them to a polygraph to determine if they genuinely find it offensive.
They said it and wrote it their entire lives. Attention whores jumping on the bandwagon once it picked up steam.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 1:55 pm to DelU249
FYI these are the possible outcomes
1. Snyder has a change of heart and voluntarily changes the name
2. The protest rages on, eventually mellows out, nothing happens
3. The protest reaches a significant enough level to affect the bottom line, Snyder is financially forced to change the name
4. Snyder is politically forced out or politically forced to change the name
#4 is the only one I would have a problem with.
ETA: I guess #5 would be an unrelated change of ownership (ie Snyder's death)
1. Snyder has a change of heart and voluntarily changes the name
2. The protest rages on, eventually mellows out, nothing happens
3. The protest reaches a significant enough level to affect the bottom line, Snyder is financially forced to change the name
4. Snyder is politically forced out or politically forced to change the name
#4 is the only one I would have a problem with.
ETA: I guess #5 would be an unrelated change of ownership (ie Snyder's death)
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:02 pm to genro
I'm unretiring for just this one
simple...blackskins would be considered to be widely racist given the amount of people who have just recently experienced jim crow...the majority thought would be racist where it isn't for redskins and I don't know how that could be intended well
whiteskins...sure the double standard would be fussed about, but I'm not very imaginative in terms of how this could be used positively, and of course, even if it were...then the positive aspects would be claimed by black people and latinos to be racist because they would view it as being intended to only apply to white people
redskins...native American culture is far different from either...I personally view it as a representation of positive traits from NA culture that are no longer values we hold to, and are an ideal...The logo is certainly not lacking dignity that's for sure.
simple...blackskins would be considered to be widely racist given the amount of people who have just recently experienced jim crow...the majority thought would be racist where it isn't for redskins and I don't know how that could be intended well
whiteskins...sure the double standard would be fussed about, but I'm not very imaginative in terms of how this could be used positively, and of course, even if it were...then the positive aspects would be claimed by black people and latinos to be racist because they would view it as being intended to only apply to white people
redskins...native American culture is far different from either...I personally view it as a representation of positive traits from NA culture that are no longer values we hold to, and are an ideal...The logo is certainly not lacking dignity that's for sure.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:03 pm to SabiDojo
quote:They listed a bunch of other slurs as offensive. So obviously they weren't "desensitized" to racist language.
Just because the dictionary didn't list the word as offensive then doesn't mean it wasn't offensive. It just means we as a society were desensitized to its actual meaning. That doesn't mean it can't change.
Plus, using your argument, even if we were "desensitized", then wouldn't that mean we didn't take offense and therefore it wasn't a slur? Something is only a slur when it is intended to be a slur.
"Chinaman" or "Jap" have no inherent meaning as a slur. Chinaman is a Chinese person and Jap is short for Japanese.
But it's the intent in which the words are used that makes it racist. The words are used in a negative way, thus making them racist.
Not the case with "redskin". It's never been a slur. And the dictionary pages I posted from the 1980's proves that it was never seen as a slur.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:04 pm to genro
quote:
Why don't we call them the whiteskins or blackskins?
A) we don't need more words to describe white and black people
B) if you named a team white skins the social justice warriors would call it racist because you are only honoring white people by naming your team after them
C) if you named a team black skins the social justice warriors would call it racist because a rich white man named his team after his predominantly black employees
D) it wouldn't be wrong if you did either
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:07 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
They listed a bunch of other slurs as offensive. So obviously they weren't "desensitized" to racist language
That doesn't mean they still couldn't offend other races or ethnic groups. It just means they were ignorant of the effects of the word on the group it describes.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:17 pm to SabiDojo
quote:But how is that the case when polls have been conducted showing that the vast majority of the group it describes do not find the word offensive?
That doesn't mean they still couldn't offend other races or ethnic groups. It just means they were ignorant of the effects of the word on the group it describes.
And there are even Native American schools that embrace the nickname as their mascot.
So the offense isn't coming from the American Indians...
It's coming from self-righteous white people who take offense on behalf of others when there is nothing to take offense to in the first place.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:18 pm to SabiDojo
Everyone saying words evolve and change are correct but also wrong in thinking they only change for the negative. Like I said earlier the word redskins to the vast majority means the football team in Washington nothing more nothing less.
Carlin "if PTSD was still called shell shock more people would stand up and take notice of it"
Carlin "if PTSD was still called shell shock more people would stand up and take notice of it"
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:19 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
But how is that the case when polls have been conducted showing that the vast majority of the group it describes do not find the word offensive?
In the mind of a prog they are too dumb to know what they want and what's best for them.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:21 pm to JG77056
It probably doesn't hurt that Daniel Snyder is a complete dick
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:21 pm to BOSCEAUX
Everybody wanting the name changed should have listened to SVP today with his guest Chris Cooley.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:26 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
So the offense isn't coming from the American Indians...
The National Congress of American Indians might disagree. You can't say NONE of the Native Americans find the word offensive or racist.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:30 pm to SabiDojo
quote:I never said none. And I don't like citing political groups like them.
The National Congress of American Indians might disagree. You can't say NONE of the Native Americans find the word offensive or racist.
A lot of times there are politics involved and you never know what their motivations are.
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:32 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
A lot of times there is politics involved and you never know what their motivations are.
That's ridiculous.
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:37 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
The National Congress of American Indians might disagree. You can't say NONE of the Native Americans find the word offensive or racist.
Is this the Indian version of the NAACP?
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News